DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE ·1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 11199-16/ 1386-10 MAR 23 2018 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER PRIVATE Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) SECDEF Memo of3 Sep 14 "Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming PTSD" (c) PDUSD Memo of24 Feb 16 "Consideration ofDischargeUpgrade Requests Pursuant to Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records by Veterans Claiming PTSD or TBI" (d) PDUSD Memo of25 Aug 17 "Clarifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records Considering Requests by Veterans for Modification oftheir Discharge Due to Mental Health Conditions, Sexual Assault, or Sexual Harassment" Encl: (1) DD Form 149(NR2016001l199) {2) DD Form 149 (NR20100001386) (3) Case summary (4) Department ofthe Navy Medical Corps Officer Advisory Opinion DS Docket No: 11199-16 dtd 6 Dec 17 1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference{a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member ofthe Marine Corps, filed enclosure {l) for reconsideration and seeking an upgrade to his other than honorable discharge characterization. Petitioner previously petitioned the Board and was advised in our letter of 12 November 2010, that his applications had been denied (enclosure (2)). Petitioner's case was reconsidered in accordance with Board ofCorrection ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army, 335 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 2. The Board, consisting of , and reviewed Petitioner's allegations oferror and injustice on 12 February 2018, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, relevant portions ofhis naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department ofthe Navy. b. Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest ofjustice to review the application on its merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period ofactive duty on 15 June 1967. Between 17 December 1967 and 2 March 1968, Petitioner participated in numerous combat operations in the Republic ofVietnam. d. On 12 March 1968, Petitioner was found guilty at summary court martial for three instances offailure to obey a lawful order and communicated a threat. e. On 14 March 1968, Petitioner was medically evaluated for headaches, dizziness, nervousness and appearing to be withdrawn. Petitioner was prescribed Librium. f. On 2 May 1968, Petitioner participated in g. On 10 September 1968, Petitioner was found guilty at general court martial for disrespect toward a non-commissioned officer and disobeying.a superior commissioned officer. h. On 2 February 1969, while in Vietnam, Petitioner began a period ofunauthorized absence (UA). On 9 February 1969, Petitioner was found guilty at summary court martial for false official statement, malingering, and a period ofUA. i. Petitioner's service record entry from 14 May 1969 indicates he participated in two more combat operations between April 1969 and.June 1969. j. On 22 October 1969, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for a period ofUA. On 14 January 1970, Petitioner was found guilty at summary court martial for a period ofUA. k. Petitioner with discharged from the Marine Corps on 24 February 1970, with an other than honorable characterization ofservice and received a reentry (RE) code ofRE-4. H.is Certificate ofRelease or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) reflects six separate periods ofUA. l. As part ofthe review process, Medical Corps officer ofthe Department oftheNavy reviewed Petitioner's assertions and the available records, and issued an unfavorable Advisory Opinion (AO) dated 6 December 2017, concluding that there is insufficient evidence to support that Petitioner's contention that he had service connected Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which contributed to his misconduct. Enclosure (4). Petitioner was provided the AO and given 30 days in which to provide a response or a rebuttal. After the 30-day period passed without any action by Petitioner, the matter was taken to the Board. m. The Board, in its review ofPetitioner's entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as the Petitioner's contention that he was exposed to Agent Orange, suffered from PTSD, and experienced racism and prejudice dunng his time in the Marine Corps. Petitioner's assertion ofsuffering from PTSD was fully and carefully considered , by the Board in light of references (b)-(d). In accordance with current guidance, the Board gives liberal and special consideration to treatment documentation ofPTSD symptoms and medical determinations ofthe existence of serVice-connected PTSD. The Board disagreed with the AO, and determined that the information provided by Petitioner combined with combat operations reflected in his record was sufficient to establish that Petitioner suffered from PTSD which contributed to his misconduct. The Board found that Petitioner's PTSD mitigated his misconduct that occurred beginning in early 1968 through the date ofhis discharge from the Marine Corps on 24February1970. n. The Board noted that Petitioner received three summary court martials, a general court martial, and one NJP, and found that the misconduct for which he was found guilty should be taken into consideration when determining the characterization ofserVice. In light ofhis contributions in Vietnam and the mitigating factor ofcombat-connected PTSD, the Board found that Petitioner is entitled to relief, to include an upgrade to his discharge characterization .from other than honorable to a general characterization ofservice and a change to his narrative separation reason and his resultant separation code and separation authority. o. With respect to Petitioner's statement about exposure to Agent Orange, the Board noted that veterans who served iii Vietnam between 1962 and 1975, regardless oflength ofservice, may be eligible for the Agent Orange registry health exam. The Board notes that Veterans Affairs recommends that veterans contact their local area Environmental Health Coordinator to determine whether they are eligible. CONCLUSION: That Petitioner be granted relief with respect to a change to his discharge characterization to reflect an upgrade from other than honorable to general, that his separation authority be changed "MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6421," his separation code ofbe changed to "JFF," and his narrative reason for separation be changed to "Secretarial Authority." In view ofthe above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner be issued a new DD Form 214, Certificate ofRelease or Discharge from Active Duty to show he was discharged from the Marine Corps on 24 February 1970, with a general characterization ofservice, a narrative reason for separation of"Secretarial Authority, a separation code of"JFF," and a separation authority of"MARCORSEPMAN PAR 6421." That a copy ofthis report ofproceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record. That, upon request, the Department ofVeterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's application was received by the Board on 28 December 2016. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 723.6(c) it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 5. Pursuant to the delegation ofauthority set out in Section 6(e) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulation, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority ofreference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary ofthe Navy. Executive Director